Student Engagement – online

In recent times, an important factor that requires consideration when discussing student engagement is the method of course delivery in universities. Some courses are delivered face-to-face; some via a blend of online and face-to-face and others are delivered fully online. In a traditional face-to-face class, students attend lectures and tutorials, and can participate in learning activities while in the presence of the instructor and their peers. A fully online course is typically delivered via the web with all the interactions between the learners, content and instructors facilitated by web based technologies, while blended courses use a mix involving face-to-face teaching augmented by web or online components.

The mode of course delivery defines the environment in which the student learns and encompasses the systems and dynamics that facilitate and enable student engagement (Coates, 2006). It is reasonable to assume that the mode of delivery will have an influence on how students engage in their learning environment. As an example of how the course delivery mode could influence student engagement, fully online students tend to be older and have competing demands and priorities in their lives when compared to their on-campus counterparts (Chen et al., 2008; Dutton, Durron, & Perry, 2002). As distance learning online is the fastest growing segment of postsecondary education its important to evaluate its effect on learner engagement (Chen et al., 2008).

Coates, H. (2006). Student Engagement in Campus-based and Online Education. Retrieved 23rd October 2009, from http://www.cqu.eblib.com.ezproxy.cqu.edu.au/EBLWeb/patron/

Chen, P.-S. D., Gonyea, R., & Kuh, G. (2008). Learning at a distance [Electronic Version]. Journal of online education, 4. Retrieved October 2009, from http://innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=438&action=login

Student engagement – Class attendance

Most of the research into measuring student engagement prior to the widespread adoption of online, or web based classes, has concentrated on the simple measure of attendance (Douglas & Alemanne, 2007). While class attendance is a crude measure, in that it is only ever indicative of participation and does not necessarily consider the quality of the participation, it has nevertheless been found to be an important variable in determining student success (Douglas, 2008). It could also be said that class attendance is used as a metric for engagement, simply because it is one of the few indicators of engagement that are visible, or external to the student. For example, student motivation is often linked closely with engagement and has been defined as an internal state or condition that activates behaviour and gives it direction (Huitt, 2001). Class participation could be seen as an indicator of behaviour activated by a students’ motivation and can also be measured in online education, albeit with the same limitations concerning the quality of the participation.

 

Douglas, I. (2008, 14 December 2008). Measuring Participation in Internet Supported Courses. Paper presented at the 2008 International Conference on Computer Science and Software Engineering, Wuhan, China.

Douglas, I., & Alemanne, N. D. (2007). Measuring Student Participation and Effort. Paper presented at the International Conference on Cognition and Exploratory Learning in Digital Age, Algarve, Portugal.

Huitt, W. (2001). Motivation to Learn [Electronic Version]. Educational Psychology Interactive. Retrieved 31st October 2009, from http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/motivaton/motivate.html

Part 2 of the lit review

This is the follow on from the previous post on student engagement

Online technologies are starting to make a serious impression on patterns of learning and teaching in higher education and learning management systems (LMS) are at the forefront of this technological movement (Coates, 2006). LMS are becoming ubiquitous at universities around the world, adding a virtual dimension to even the most traditional campus-based institution (Coates, James, & Baldwin, 2005). They are being used for presenting online or technology-enhanced classes and are not pedagogically neutral shells for course content as they influence pedagogy by presenting default formats designed to guide the instructor toward creating a course in a certain way (Lane, 2009). If LMS are affecting pedagogy, then they are obviously affecting student study habits and learning and therefore engagement (Coates et al., 2005).

Whilst LMS have the potential to influence student engagement, research into how they do so is largely in its infancy, and is often based on assumptions about campus learning environments (Coates, 2006). However, one important factor identified in the literature indicates that much or all of the interactions enabled by the LMS is asymmetric which means that students who require substantial instructor direction may have problems with an environment that demands a certain level of self discipline (Douglas & Alemanne, 2007). Importantly, whether online or otherwise, student motivation is a, or perhaps the, key factor influencing the level of engagement in a course.

Additionally there is research that suggests course level and discipline has an effect on student grades and withdrawal rates when the course is delivered by LMS (Hornik, Saunders, Li, Moskal, & Dzuiban, 2008). This would indicate that not all courses are equal when considering their applicability to LMS delivery. High paradigm courses such as physics and chemistry demonstrate higher grades and lower withdrawal rates than low paradigm courses like social sciences and literature (Hornik et al., 2008). Arguably, this may indicate lower levels of student engagement for low paradigm courses than for high paradigm courses. The same research suggests that course level has an influence on student grades and satisfaction delivered by an LMS. Introductory courses, such as first years courses, were compared to advanced level courses; second and third year; and demonstrated different levels of student satisfaction and grades, especially when linked to the course’s level of paradigm development (Hornik et al., 2008).

Bulger, M. E., Mayer, R. E., Almeroth, K. C., & Blau, S. D. (2008). Measuring Learner Engagement in Computer-Equipped College Classrooms. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 17(2), 129-143.

Chen, P.-S. D., Gonyea, R., & Kuh, G. (2008). Learning at a distance [Electronic Version]. Journal of online education, 4. Retrieved October 2009, from http://innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=438&action=login

Coates, H. (2006). Student Engagement in Campus-based and Online Education. Retrieved 23rd October 2009, from http://www.cqu.eblib.com.ezproxy.cqu.edu.au/EBLWeb/patron/

Coates, H. (2007). A model of online and general campus-based student engagement. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(2), 121-141.

Coates, H., James, R., & Baldwin, G. (2005). A critical examination of the effects of learning management systems on university teaching and learning. Tertiary education and management, 11(2005), 19-36.

Douglas, I., & Alemanne, N. D. (2007). Measuring Student Participation and Effort. Paper presented at the International Conference on Cognition and Exploratory Learning in Digital Age, Algarve, Portugal.

Hornik, S., Saunders, C. S., Li, Y., Moskal, P. D., & Dzuiban, C. D. (2008). The Impact of Paradigm Development and Course Level on Performance in Technology-Mediated Learning Environments. Informing Science. The international journal of an emerging transdiscipline, 11(11).

Krause, K.-L. (2005, 21-22 September 2005.). Understanding and promoting student engagement in university learning communities. Paper presented at the Sharing Scholarship in Learning and Teaching: Engaging Students, James Cook University, Townsville.

Krause, K.-L., & Coates, H. (2008). Students’ engagement in first-year university. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(5), 493 – 505.

Kuh, G. D. (2001). Assessing What Really Matters to Student Learning. Inside the national survey of student engagement. [Electronic Version]. Retrieved 22nd October 2009, from http://cpr.iub.edu/uploads/Assessing_What_Really_Matters_To_Student_Learning_(Kuh,%202001).pdf

Lane, L. M. (2009). Insidious Pedagogy: How course management systems affect teaching [Electronic Version], 14, from http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2530/2303

Stovall, I. (2003). Engagement and Online Learning [Electronic Version]. UIS Community of Practice for E-Learning. Retrieved October 2009, from http://otel.uis.edu/copel/EngagementandOnlineLearning.ppt

What is learner engagement?

The following is the start of a series of posts that I’m using as preparation for an assessment piece. Hopefully these posts will help organize my thoughts and positively contribute to the structure of the paper. Note that this post will change frequently as it gets fine tuned.

In higher education, engagement has become a catch-all term most commonly used to describe a compendium of behaviours characterizing students (Krause, 2005). It has even been suggested that student engagement could be used as an indicator of institutional teaching quality (Kuh, 2001). Furthermore it has been said that at a certain level of analysis, engagement is taken to provide a singularly sufficient means of determining whether students are engaging with their study and university learning community in ways likely to promote high-quality learning. (Krause & Coates, 2008). However, measuring engagement and its link to learning is challenging (Bulger, Mayer, Almeroth, & Blau, 2008). This is especially true when the term engagement is often used in a broad terms to describe a range of behaviours that learners exhibit. An investigation into what engagement is, and what factors influence engagement, is required before metrics for its measurement can be determined.

Stovall (2003) suggests that engagement is defined by a combination of a student’s time on task and their willingness to participate in activities. Others say that engagement is the quality of effort students themselves devote to educationally purposeful activities that contribute directly to desired outcomes (Krause & Coates, 2008). Additionally, Chen (2008) says that engagement is the degree to which learners are engaged with their educational activities and that engagement is positively linked to a host of desired outcomes, including high grades, student satisfaction, and perseverance (Chen et al., 2008). Other studies define engagement in terms of interest, effort, motivation and time-on-task and suggest that there is a causal relationship between engaged time, that is, the period of time in which students are completely focused on and participating in the learning task, and academic achievement (Bulger et al., 2008).

A basic tenet of the research into engagement is that student’s activity and involvement in their learning tasks is related to their academic achievement. While there doesn’t appear to be a single definition for engagement, a definition put forward in 2007 aggregates the literature to provide the following elucidation. “Engagement is seen to comprise active and collaborative learning, participation in challenging academic activities, formative communication with academic staff, involvement in enriching educational experiences, and feeling legitimated and supported by university learning communities” (Coates, 2007)

A complicating factor that requires consideration when discussing student engagement is the method of course delivery. Some courses are delivered face-to-face, some via a blend of online and face-to-face and others fully online. There is some indication that distance-learning students outperform or perform on par with on-campus students on measures such as student-faculty interactions and higher-order, integrative and reflective learning (Stovall, 2003). However distance-learning students often demonstrate lower levels of engagement when it comes to active and collaborative learning (Stovall, 2003). Possibly due to the difficulty of such an indirect comparison, the degree to which distance learners are engaged in their educational activities relative to campus-based learners is unresolved (Chen et al., 2008).

Chen et al. (2008) states that most of the work demonstrating positive outcomes in distance learning has focused on older students who are more motivated and have the self discipline to manage effectively the unstructured nature of the distance learning environment. While this may be true, research has been largely based on assumptions about campus learning environments that ignore the implications of online learning (Coates, 2006).

Bulger, M. E., Mayer, R. E., Almeroth, K. C., & Blau, S. D. (2008). Measuring Learner Engagement in Computer-Equipped College Classrooms. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 17(2), 129-143.

Chen, P.-S. D., Gonyea, R., & Kuh, G. (2008). Learning at a distance [Electronic Version]. Journal of online education, 4. Retrieved October 2009, from http://innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=438&action=login

Coates, H. (2006). Student Engagement in Campus-based and Online Education. Retrieved 23rd October 2009, from http://www.cqu.eblib.com.ezproxy.cqu.edu.au/EBLWeb/patron/

Coates, H. (2007). A model of online and general campus-based student engagement. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(2), 121-141.

Krause, K.-L. (2005, 21-22 September 2005.). Understanding and promoting student engagement in university learning communities. Paper presented at the Sharing Scholarship in Learning and Teaching: Engaging Students, James Cook University, Townsville.

Krause, K.-L., & Coates, H. (2008). Students’ engagement in first-year university. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(5), 493 – 505.

Kuh, G. D. (2001). Assessing What Really Matters to Student Learning. Inside the national survey of student engagement. [Electronic Version]. Retrieved 22nd October 2009, from http://cpr.iub.edu/uploads/Assessing_What_Really_Matters_To_Student_Learning_(Kuh,%202001).pdf

Stovall, I. (2003). Engagement and Online Learning [Electronic Version]. UIS Community of Practice for E-Learning. Retrieved October 2009, from http://otel.uis.edu/copel/EngagementandOnlineLearning.ppt